Lhug-Pa wrote:About how long would it take a Dzogchen practitioner who is between lower and medium scope at best regarding their capacity—yet who also has average or slightly-above-average intellectual-faculties—to learn Tibetan well enough in order to at least 'somewhat grasp' the sense of what is written in the 17 (+2) Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra's?

(Assuming that one has to give no more than say 30 to 45 hours a week of their total time to a job and/or non-Tibetan-related schooling)

Six weeks.You can learn to read Tibetan in a day, get good at it in a week, and start hacking through a word-by-word translation, but sentence structure is very different and that says nothing about grasping the wisdom beyond the words. The little bits I can make sense of are generally reflecting something I've learned from my teachers, but YMMV. The seventeen tantras are certainly an amazing treasure, but it seems many great practitioners in Tibet would have had limited access to them at best, relying more on the student-teacher relationship and actual practice for a very long time vs perusing them to try to learn from them.I suppose I lean a bit more conservative on the whole but now that we have a couple of post-diaspora practitioners in the West, it really is time to translate even the most inner texts, with the hopes they get used properly.

Lhug-Pa wrote:About how long would it take a Dzogchen practitioner who is between lower and medium scope at best regarding their capacity—yet who also has average or slightly-above-average intellectual-faculties—to learn Tibetan well enough in order to at least 'somewhat grasp' the sense of what is written in the 17 (+2) Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra's?

(Assuming that one has to give no more than say 30 to 45 hours a week of their total time to a job and/or non-Tibetan-related schooling)

Six weeks.You can learn to read Tibetan in a day, get good at it in a week,

Thoroughly tame your own mind.This is (possibly) the teaching of Buddha.

Lhug-Pa wrote:About how long would it take a Dzogchen practitioner who is between lower and medium scope at best regarding their capacity—yet who also has average or slightly-above-average intellectual-faculties—to learn Tibetan well enough in order to at least 'somewhat grasp' the sense of what is written in the 17 (+2) Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra's?

Lhug-Pa wrote:About how long would it take a Dzogchen practitioner who is between lower and medium scope at best regarding their capacity—yet who also has average or slightly-above-average intellectual-faculties—to learn Tibetan well enough in order to at least 'somewhat grasp' the sense of what is written in the 17 (+2) Dzogchen Upadesha Tantra's?

(Assuming that one has to give no more than say 30 to 45 hours a week of their total time to a job and/or non-Tibetan-related schooling)

Six weeks.You can learn to read Tibetan in a day, get good at it in a week,

Believe it. I taught my eleven-year-old to say an recognize the alphabet in less than an hour.I'm referring to the script and phonetics here, not the language. Once you can recognize the letters and type in Wylie you can start cobbling literal translation. I suppose defining the term "somewhat grasp" is very much up for debate.

Yontan wrote:You can learn to read Tibetan in a day, get good at it in a week, and start hacking through a word-by-word translation, but sentence structure is very different and that says nothing about grasping the wisdom beyond the words....

...I suppose defining the term "somewhat grasp" is very much up for debate.

True.

I was just trying to get a guesstimate or ballpark-range, of which Malcolm provided:

Yudron wrote:Thank you. I do hope that if you start preparing Dzogchen translations for publication, that you will either have a glossary in the back with this kind of explanation

For key terms my glossaries will contain definitions derived from original and ancient Dzogchen commentaries themselves. My method is to base myself on how these terms are actually defined in Tibetan by the ancient masters as much as possible. While I will not be providing the texts themselves, my translations contain references to the Tibetan page number on every page, so someone with some facility in Tibetan can go and look in the original and see how I have translated something.

Like many practitioners of Dzogchen I study "Kama" and pratice terma.

I do not spend much time on later Dzogchen texts because they are all 100 percent derivative of ancient texts. About as modern as I get is the 14th century in general. Everything in Dzogchen has completely developed by that time. Longchenpa is not really at all original in terms of Dzogchen. He merely represents the culmination of the development of snying thig tradition, some might argue he is the fruit of that tradition.

In terms of actual content, there is nothing original in Dzogchen following the revelation of the Mkha' 'gro snying thig by Tsultrim Dorje in the early 14th century (which is notable mainly for the way it combines anuyoga into Dzogchen, not because it is especially novel in comparison with the Vima snying thig). Everything that follows is just restatement, a defense against polemics or a minor clarification.

Yudron wrote:Thank you. I do hope that if you start preparing Dzogchen translations for publication, that you will either have a glossary in the back with this kind of explanation

For key terms my glossaries will contain definitions derived from original and ancient Dzogchen commentaries themselves. My method is to base myself on how these terms are actually defined in Tibetan by the ancient masters as much as possible. While I will not be providing the texts themselves, my translations contain references to the Tibetan page number on every page, so someone with some facility in Tibetan can go and look in the original and see how I have translated something.

M

That all makes sense for a scholarly minded person, who was reared in the Sakya tradition before coming to Dzogchen.

I'm really happy you will be providing glossaries and page references. Which "ancient masters" do you rely on for definitions? Rangzom?

Yudron wrote:Thank you. I do hope that if you start preparing Dzogchen translations for publication, that you will either have a glossary in the back with this kind of explanation

For key terms my glossaries will contain definitions derived from original and ancient Dzogchen commentaries themselves. My method is to base myself on how these terms are actually defined in Tibetan by the ancient masters as much as possible. While I will not be providing the texts themselves, my translations contain references to the Tibetan page number on every page, so someone with some facility in Tibetan can go and look in the original and see how I have translated something.

M

That all makes sense for a scholarly minded person, who was reared in the Sakya tradition before coming to Dzogchen.

I'm really happy you will be providing glossaries and page references. Which "ancient masters" do you rely on for definitions? Rangzom?

Whoever wrote the commentaries on the seventeen tantras, traditionally attributed to Vimalamitra. In particular, the commentary on the sgra thal gyur attributed to him is an excellent source of definitions. There is much in that commentary alone that has been largely abandoned by the later tradition, not to mention the commentaries on the mu tig phreng ba, kun bzang klong drug, and so on, as well as the 119 intimate instruction section of the Vima snying thig.

He said he used the commentaries to clean up the old root's original commentary's photocopy his friend smuggled out of Potala into a definitive mistake-free correct version since the old copying method gremlins had struck that too. This took him several years. I don't think he had time to clean up 6 commentaries on it or cared to with all his activities and health problems during that time. Though possible he did and said so, but I doubt it and think he just used them as reference to clean up the main commentary. I hope you finish your Rongzom stuff too after all these years. He is undiscovered in the west and just as great if not greater than Longchenpa.

username wrote:He said he used the commentaries to clean up the old root's original commentary's photocopy his friend smuggled out of Potala into a definitive mistake-free correct version since the old copying method gremlins had struck that too. This took him several years. I don't think he had time to clean up 6 commentaries on it or cared to with all his activities and health problems during that time. Though possible he did and said so, but I doubt it and think he just used them as reference to clean up the main commentary. I hope you finish your Rongzom stuff too after all these years. He is undiscovered in the west and just as great if not greater than Longchenpa.

The six commentaries we have are:

a commentary on the sgra thal gyur (edited by ChNN from two different manuscripts, one belonging to the Great Fifth)a commentary on the mu tig phreng baa commentary on the yi ge med paa commentary on the sgron ma bar baa commentary on the sku gdung 'bar baand a commentary on the kun bzang klong drug.

These six commentaries, apart from the Vima Snying thig and the seventeen tantras themselves, are the most important ancient Dzoghen texts we have.

My Rongzom translation needs to editing, along with a whole lot of other stuff I have done. But I am only one person.

M

Last edited by Malcolm on Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

username wrote:He said he used the commentaries to clean up the old root's original commentary's photocopy his friend smuggled out of Potala into a definitive mistake-free correct version since the old copying method gremlins had struck that too. This took him several years. I don't think he had time to clean up 6 commentaries on it or cared to with all his activities and health problems during that time. Though possible he did and said so, but I doubt it and think he just used them as reference to clean up the main commentary. I hope you finish your Rongzom stuff too after all these years. He is undiscovered in the west and just as great if not greater than Longchenpa.

The six commentaries we have are:

a commentary on the sgra thal gyur (edited by ChNN from two different manuscripts, one belonging to the Great Fifth)a commentary on the mu tig phreng baa commentary on the yi ge med paa commentary on the sgron ma bar baa commentary on the sku gdung 'bar baand a commentary on the kun bzang klong drug.

These six commentaries, apart from the Vima Snying thig and the seventeen tantras themselves, as the most important ancient Dzoghen texts we have.

My Rongzom translation needs to editing, along with a whole lot of other stuff I have done. But I am only one person.

M

There is a great editor not far away.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

username wrote:He said he used the commentaries to clean up the old root's original commentary's photocopy his friend smuggled out of Potala into a definitive mistake-free correct version since the old copying method gremlins had struck that too. This took him several years. I don't think he had time to clean up 6 commentaries on it or cared to with all his activities and health problems during that time. Though possible he did and said so, but I doubt it and think he just used them as reference to clean up the main commentary. I hope you finish your Rongzom stuff too after all these years. He is undiscovered in the west and just as great if not greater than Longchenpa.

The six commentaries we have are:

a commentary on the sgra thal gyur (edited by ChNN from two different manuscripts, one belonging to the Great Fifth)a commentary on the mu tig phreng baa commentary on the yi ge med paa commentary on the sgron ma bar baa commentary on the sku gdung 'bar baand a commentary on the kun bzang klong drug.

These six commentaries, apart from the Vima Snying thig and the seventeen tantras themselves, are the most important ancient Dzoghen texts we have.

My Rongzom translation needs to editing, along with a whole lot of other stuff I have done. But I am only one person.

M

Thanks for the info and list. The first one, I think it is by Vima himself, is the one he got from the Fifth's Potala library. I think he said it was the most complete version and a very important find. Anyway you just have to take your time I guess, one day at a time. Maybe Valby can help once he finishes his kunjed gyalpo commentary translations. Best of luck.